DR. CLOETE AND BISHOP TUTU
Recently there appeared a printed interview in “The Banner” by Roben Rozema and Dr. Cloete on the subject of South Africa and the policy of equal but separate development of the races. In the interview reference was made to an article of mine that had previously appeared in both The Banner and the Outlook. A brief response to their statements is appropriate. Although, it would be an interesting exercise to dissect Dr. Cloete’s statements point by point, space here necessarily limits any exhaustive analysis.
The one unalterable fact that remains for all to recognize, including Dr. Cloete, is that the present modem, sophisticated, economic grandeur of the Republic of South Africa has been the product of Anglo/Dutch industry and ingenuity. The blacks have no a’priori claim in South Africa. From the nation of South Africa’s very inception there was not a Bantu or Hottentot for a thousand miles, let alone any whose initiative contributed to the great commercial centers of South Africa. The black migration into South Africa, then as now, was primarily to benefit from this establishment. ln fact, it is this continuing migration that has made the internal passport system, to which Dr. Cloete refers so contemptuously, necessary as a method of tracking the influx. A similar provision has been suggested in immigration legislation before our own Congress relative to the migration across the Rio Grande.
Dr. Cloete rejects the notion that blacks be assimilated or “co opted” into the present structure. To him this is unacceptable. What structure does he prefer? It was most disturbing to note that Dr. Cloete has aligned himself with Bishop Tutu. I wonder what the limits of Dr. Cloete’s agreement with Tutu are? His Nobel Peace prize notwithstanding, Tutu is a man with questionable credentials. He is a self-proclaimed Socialist who on many occasions has called for the violent destruction of the Capitalist Free Market system of South Africa and elsewhere. He recently descended into the black hole of Liberation Theology when he declared: “When I see an armed guerrilla I see the face of Christ.”
In typical Socialist fashion. it does not bother Tutu to place the lives of hundreds of thousands of blacks in absolute economic jeopardy by call ing for American disinvestiture in South Africa. This, despite the fact that most blacks oppose it. The precedence for this, of course, is imbedded in Socialist ideology and was first implemented in the Soviet Union in the twenties when seven million Uzbek farmers and their families were intentionally starved to forceably bring about the miracle of Socialist collectivized agriculture. More recently it can be witnessed in Ethiopia where millions perish largely because of Socialist collectivization programs. No one would suggest guilt by association, but. it must be admitted, in view of the expressed philosophy of Bishop Tutu, that Dr. Cloete has chosen those with whom he would agree rather carelessly. Bishop Tutu simply serves to reinforce the assertion made before, that the problem in the Republic of South Africa is less Black than Red. Apartheid is the trigger word, Marxism is the goal.
Alben C. Wiersma
Grand Rapids, Michigan
SYNOD 1985
Our Synod has again flouted Divine authority by deciding in favor of placing women in church offices.
Dr. W. Hendriksen in his commentary on I Timothy 2:11, 12, alluding also to I Cor. 14:33–35, wrote, “Let not a woman yearn to exercise authority over a man by lecturing him in public worship. For the sake both of herself and of the spiritual welfare of the church such unholy tampering with divine authority is forbidden.”
In Deut. 4:2 God commanded Israel, “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.” This warning is repeated in 12:32, “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.” In Proverbs 30:5, 6 we are also reminded, “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.” The last chapter of Revelation (22:18, 19) gives us the same warning. “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book . And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”
Now The Banner editor tells us that the Bible is temporally and culturally conditioned , explaining that what the Bible said was only for that time. The executive secretary of the women’s committee is also quoted in the Grand Rapids Press as thinking that “this is the last year for the traditionalist,” and that she confidently expects women to become elders and ministers. “It is not a question of how but when.”
We are faced on one hand with the Bible’s “Thus saith the Lord,” and on the other with the lies like that of the devil to Eve when he assured her. in defiance of God’s warning, “You shall not surely die” for disobedience. Whom are we going to believe and obey?
Peter H. Yonker
Dutton, Michigan
THUS SAYS THE LORD!
I have read many articles in a number of magazines about the Women–in–Office issue.
What strikes me in most (if not all!) of these is, that virtually nobody asks: “What does the Lord have to say about this?”
When I read I Cor. 14:37 it is obvious that THE LORD has given Paul clear instructions about conduct in the worship services in the churches and has told Paul what to say to the congregations and their ministers. These instructions can be read in the previous verses. In verse 33 Paul states that the LORD’s instructions were meant for al l the congregations of the saints. With the same authority Paul instructs Timothy in I Tim. 3:1–12 concerning church government that deacons must be husbands of but one wife etc . Look also at II Thess. 2:15 and 3:4 and I Tim. 2:12. If, therefore, I take I Cor. 14:37 and 33 seriously, I ask myself the question if synod in its decision was not totally out of bounds, as The Lord had already given clear instructions to Paul. As I read in James 1:17 that God does not change, certainly all congregations of the Saints (I Cor. 14:33) means all the congregations of the C.R.C. That the Lord does not change, you can also read in I Sam. 15:29.
Look at the first question asked in human history. The Lord had spoken but the devil turned that around and asked: Has The Lord said? Later the Lord spoke to Noah and Abraham. How often Moses brought the commandments of the Lord to the Israelites! And how many times the prophets chastised the people of Israel with the Word of The Lord! Also in the New Testament the Lord spoke in the gospels and later through the apostles.
Let us tum back to the Lord and listen first to what He has said.
J. J. Buma
Edmonton, Alberta
Dear Rev. De Jong,
Is it possible that the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us something? We see the CRC deciding to permit women to serve as deacons and negate the authority of Scripture! We see a reaction movement starting such as the MARS Seminary. But the enrollment is minimal! Why?
Is it possible that the Holy Spirit is teaching us that we in the CRC must go back further. Back to the events that underlie our current turmoil!
It appears that the CRC chose to tear out several pages of Scripture back in 1892 when we accepted Abraham Kuiper’s teaching of presumptive regeneration. He wrote in his E VOTO that the birth statistics and mortality statistics in Holland of 1888 showed that 50% of all children died before the age of 21! So he concluded that the Lord regenerated all of them because they were too young to decide for Jesus. Ipso facto then it must follow that our infants may be presumed to be born again because the Lord is just.
He failed to check this rationale against Scripture when Jesus taught us to evangelize the covenant people, i.e. Nicodemus in John 3–“Ye must be born again.” Therefore, we must go back to the Word and remind ourselves that our children are just as much objects of evangelism as the unchurched. We must add those pages of Scripture back into our Bible!
I have a child lost due to a miscarriage. I will see him in heaven . I can say this on the basis of God’s promises. But that does not logically say that ALL children will therefore automatically be saved. When older they must receive Christ as their Savior! This is also in the Word.
So the phenomenon of drifting from the Word must be addressed over the movements of the last 100 years! and corrected! If this is not done in a radical way, there will be massive departure of our members to other fellowships.
Sincerely,
P. Sluis
27 Deerfield Rd.
Wyckoff, NJ 07481